I think her language is suggesting that Tathagatagarbha formed a separate tradition beside that of the Yogacara in China (A few people like Zongmi and Chengguan classified it as such) not that Buddha Nature arose in China.

*sigh* thank you. I include the book and page number and repeatedly say "you can read this over at google books" so that people can inform themselves of the argument and have a thoughtful discussion. If DGA had actually bothered to read the page, he'd see the title as " A Geneaology of Original Enlightenment Thought" and then Indian Yogacara mentioned but a big big discussion of the Chinese apocryphon "The Awakening of Faith", Hua-yen, li and shih , Zongmi and Chengguan on p. 6 and finally the Buddhahood of non-sentient beings or in Japanese somoku jobutsu that's page 8!

We agree on the content of Stone's text, as you can see from what I wrote earlier in this thread. Surely you read the whole thread before jumping to conclusions...

But that's the less interesting point. Here's the real crux of the matter:

Based on your extensive reading, would you say that tathagatha-garbha was taught as a central premise of Mahayana Buddhism in India, or do you hold that it was a Chinese development that is absent from Mahayana prior to (or outside the influence of) Zhiyi?

Oh gods, haven't you ever heard of The Awakening of Faith ?
please for the love of this forum just pick up a book!
gassho
Rory

Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58https://www.tendai-usa.org/

Based on your extensive reading, would you say that tathagatha-garbha was taught as a central premise of Mahayana Buddhism in India, or do you hold that it was a Chinese development that is absent from Mahayana prior to (or outside the influence of) Zhiyi?

Based on your extensive reading, would you say that tathagatha-garbha was taught as a central premise of Mahayana Buddhism in India, or do you hold that it was a Chinese development that is absent from Mahayana prior to (or outside the influence of) Zhiyi?

It's not a trick.

Related: as someone who values the insights of historians, do you understand why the Awakening of Faith is irrelevant to this question?

Based on your extensive reading, would you say that tathagatha-garbha was taught as a central premise of Mahayana Buddhism in India, or do you hold that it was a Chinese development that is absent from Mahayana prior to (or outside the influence of) Zhiyi?

It's not a trick.

Related: as someone who values the insights of historians, do you understand why the Awakening of Faith is irrelevant to this question?

IMO she doesn't want to answer. This thread was started, afaik, because I said, in a different thread, that Ven Zhiyi predates the contemporary Chinese mainstream tripartite fusion of Madhyamaka-Yogācāra-Tathāgatagarbha. Rory thought I was saying that Ven Zhiyi either a) completely predated Yogācāra or that b) he never read Yogācāra texts in his life. She responded with a quote from J Stone's book designed to substantiate that Ven Zhiyi was aware of some Yogācāra discourse, but the quotes addressed Tiāntāi Buddhism in general, not the work of Ven Zhiyi.